Christ's Words changed during the Consecration

[cesmit2]

I wanted to know why after Vatican II, the words of our Lord Jesus Christ have been changed during the Consecration.

Currently, the Priest reads - "This is the cup of my blood. The blood of the new and everlasting covenant which will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven.

If you read any translation of the Bible, the word all does not appear, rather the word MANY.

I checked and the words ALL and MANY are not interchangeable and are not synonyms for one another.

can someone please clue me in here as to why the words of our Lord were changed?

Thanks!

 

[benedictgal]

The current Latin versio of the Roman Missal has the words “pro multis”, which means “for the many.” It is not the Second Vatican Council that changed this; rather, it was the International Commission on the English Language (ICEL) that made the change back in the 1970s. The new English-translation of the Roman Missal removes “all” amd reprlaces it with the original “many”, as it reads from the Latin.

 

[cesmit2]

Great! Thanks for your response to my question. My second question is then, since the priests are not saying the words of Christ correctly, are any of the Masses that I have attended valid? Why has the Vatican not instituted this change to the Mass so that the priest reads the correct words of Christ during the consecration?

I feel that this is a pretty big deal - but maybe it is just me.

Thanks again!

 

[mercygate]

Great! Thanks for your response to my question. My second question is then, since the priests are not saying the words of Christ correctly, are any of the Masses that I have attended valid? Why has the Vatican not instituted this change to the Mass so that the priest reads the correct words of Christ during the consecration?

I feel that this is a pretty big deal - but maybe it is just me.

Thanks again!

Yes. The Masses are valid. Check the Catechism on this. The rationale (and to me, it’s a bit thin) is that Christ did, in fact, die “for all” even though “all” will not be saved. I believe the new version is returning to “for many.”

How is it that this has only just come to your attention? We have been using this translation for 40 years.

 

[cesmit2]

It was just brought to my attention because I have been a passive catholic for 24 years and just followed along like everyone else. I converted with my parents when I was 10 years old so I have no knowledge of the Traditional Mass. I have recently been delving more into my faith and I have stumbled across many sites with contrary information of the things that I practice every Sunday at Mass.

From where do you find that Christ died for all? Of course, I have heard this all my life, but during the institution of Eucharist in the Bible, Christ states what I wrote above - “…which will be shed for you and for many”

Thanks!

 

[mercygate]

It was just brought to my attention because I have been a passive catholic for 24 years and just followed along like everyone else. I converted with my parents when I was 10 years old so I have no knowledge of the Traditional Mass. I have recently been delving more into my faith and I have stumbled across many sites with contrary information of the things that I practice every Sunday at Mass.

From where do you find that Christ died for all?

I Tim 2:4

“God our Savior . . . who desires all men to be saved.”

Of course, I have heard this all my life, but during the institution of Eucharist in the Bible, Christ states what I wrote above - “…which will be shed for you and for many”

Thanks!I agree that it was audacious of the English translators to take such liberties with the text. As benedicgal pointed out, the official Latin text still reads “pro vobis et multis” – many.

Be careful around those ultra-Katholick web sites. The ones that reject every pope since Pius XII are poison.

 

[benedictgal]

Here is what the new ICEL translation will look like (and I made a mistake: International Commission on English in the Liturgy):

TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND EAT OF IT,
FOR THIS IS MY BODY,
WHICH WILL BE GIVEN UP FOR YOU.

he took this precious chalice
in his holy and venerable hands,
and once more giving you thanks, he said the blessing
and gave the chalice to his disciples, saying:

TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND DRINK FROM IT,
FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD,
THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL COVENANT,
WHICH WILL BE POURED OUT FOR YOU AND FOR MANY
FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.
DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME.

This is the new translation for EP I. The “for many” wording extends to all of the EPs ni the new translation.

 

[fjacks]

The words “for all” replaced “for many” a very long time ago at the request of nearly all the episcopal conferences. While almost no Catholic was aware of the meaning of the latin words “pro multis”, when translated “for many” in any of the vernaculars implied that Christ did not die “for all” but only “for some”. While that was not the intent of “pro multis” that is how it came across.

Pope Benedict has decided, on his own authority, to revert to “for many” (for English speakers). Interestingly, he has given the episcopal conferences two years before implementing this change. He is probably hoping that this will leave sufficient time for catechesis so that people will not interpret this change as the church deciding that Christ didn’t die for all but only for some.

 

[benedictgal]

The words “for all” replaced “for many” a very long time ago at the request of nearly all the episcopal conferences. While almost no Catholic was aware of the meaning of the latin words “pro multis”, when translated “for many” in any of the vernaculars implied that Christ did not die “for all” but only “for some”. While that was not the intent of “pro multis” that is how it came across.

Pope Benedict has decided, on his own authority, to revert to “for many” (for English speakers). Interestingly, he has given the episcopal conferences two years before implementing this change. He is probably hoping that this will leave sufficient time for catechesis so that people will not interpret this change as the church deciding that Christ didn’t die for all but only for some.

Here is a link to the Q&A that the USCCB posted to explain the Pro Multis matter:

usccb.org/liturgy/missalformation/translating_sixquestions.shtml

Here are some highlights:

1. What does the decision regarding the translation of pro multis mean?
   After having consulted with Conferences of Bishops throughout the world, the Holy Father has decided that the translation of qui pro vobis et pro multis effundétur in remissiónem peccatórum, presently translated “which will be shed for you and for all, so that sins may be given,” will eventually be changed to “which will be shed for you and for many, so that sins may be forgiven.”

…5. Does this mean that Christ did not die for everyone?
No. It is a dogmatic teaching of the Church that Christ died on the Cross for all men and women (cf. John 11:52; 2 Corinthians 5:14-15; Titus 2:11; 1 John 2:2).

1. Then why do the Latin words of institution say pro multis?
   The Latin words of institution say that Christ shed his blood pro multis in the same sense that the synoptic Gospels use this term, as in the Last Supper narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark:

Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you,
for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.”3
Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it. He said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many.”4
“The expression ‘for many,’ while remaining open to the inclusion of each human person, is reflective also of the fact that this salvation is not brought about in some mechanistic way, without one’s own willing or participation; rather, the believer is invited to accept in faith the gift that is being offered and to receive the supernatural life that is given to those who participate in this mystery, living it out in their lives as well so as to be numbered among the ‘many’ to whom the text refers.”5

I hope that this helps.

 

[passus]

My second question is then, since the priests are not saying the words of Christ correctly, are any of the Masses that I have attended valid? Why has the Vatican not instituted this change to the Mass so that the priest reads the correct words of Christ during the consecration?

The words are not “incorrect” because if they were, we would not be using them.

 

[benedictgal]

The words are not “incorrect” because if they were, we would not be using them.

The problem is that the translation that we currently have is seriously flawed. Last November, while I was in St. Louis on business, I managed to squeeze in some time to attend the Gateway Liturgycal Conference. One of the topics during the Saturday session concerned the new translations. The new Metropolitan of Detroit covered the issue on Friday and it was revisited on Saturday.

The big problem with the current translation is that it is not a word-for-word version. Unlike the Spanish-language Roman Missal (the one that I am familiar with is the one approved for the Mexican Episcopal Conference), the one that we have is a paraphrase. This was noted in the Saturday session. In fact, we got into an interesting discussion as to how the Spanish language is faithful to the text while the English one is not.

Here is what precipitated what we are going through today. The former prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Jorge Cardinal Medina Estevis (he was the one who made the formal announcement “Habemus Papam”) wrote a letter to ICEl stating that the CDWDS could not accept their translation of the Roman Missal. It reads in part:

As of the present date, the member Conferences of the Mixed Commission known as the International Commission on English in the Liturgy have taken a number of steps in response to the Congregation’s request for such a restructuring of the Commission. Certain procedures have been set in place which - while falling short of those for which the Congregation continues to ask - would not be without positive effect in terms of the formulation of new translations. Unfortunately, however, such measures have not yet resulted, as the Congregation had hoped, in a fresh group of experts and administrators appropriately positioned to collaborate with the Holy See in the implementation of new norms represented by the Instruction Liturgiam authenticam, as approved by the Holy Father on March 20, 2001, for the appropriate emendation of texts already in progress.

The feasibility of resolving the problems in a manner that would involve the participation of the present Mixed Commission has been impeded by the fact that as of the present date the Conferences have not succeeded in making the necessary adjustments to the Commission’s personnel, nor have all of the provisions requested by this Congregation and now required by the Instruction Liturgiam authenticam been included within its statutes. Certain Bishops have indicated further that the conferences are inhibited from making such changes as a result of contractual arrangements binding in civil law. While the problems in the proposed translation of the Missale Romanum have been evident to the Congregation for some time, the inflexibility of the structural problems hindering their effective resolution has admittedly come as somewhat of a surprise to it. The Congregation’s delay in giving a response regarding the translation of the Missale Romanum has been interpreted by some as a stalling strategy aimed at thwarting the eventual publication of a new English-language translation of that liturgical book. In fact, nothing could have been further from the truth. Even so, it has become increasingly apparent that the negative consequences of further delay by the Congregation in providing a definite response regarding the liturgical translation in question have clearly overtaken the hopes for a solution that justified such a delay, and therefore the moment has come for the present communication.

This Dicastery had hoped to communicate its findings regarding the translation in question together with a concrete and realistic proposal for a future collaboration with the Conferences aimed at the resolution of the problems through the instrumentality of a renewed Mixed Commission. To this end, it has considered various options and continues to do so. In any event, it would clearly be preferable to incorporate within an eventual solution the best elements of the work that has already been done. Nonetheless the Congregation has determined that it is no longer feasible to delay the present communication, even in the continued absence of such a proposal. This Dicastery wishes to state also that it would also have no objection if the content of the attached Observations were to be made public, with or without the contents of the present letter.

The Congregation considers it a duty to express its thanks to those Bishops whose efforts have been dedicated in a particular way to a resolution of these issues of English-language translation of liturgical texts of the Roman Rite. It also wishes to assure the Conference of Bishops of __________ that it will give all due consideration to any proposals that the Conference may wish to offer for the resolution of the present difficult situation, so that the translation of the Missale Romanum to be published may conform to the present norms for liturgical translation and the heritage of the Roman Rite be more effectively preserved and transmitted to the faithful of your country in the English language.

This letter was sent just about seven years ago (March 16, 2002) and urged that ICEL follow Liturgiam Authenticam. Unfortunately, it appeared that ICEL was working out of the same model that it used back in the 1970s (a format that came from France that had no ttheological nor liturgical backing). In fact, it was Cardinal Medina Estevis who first highlighted the problems with the current ICEL translation, having picked apart and refused to approve the ICEL version of the Rite of Ordination. This action led him to look at the other ICEL translations, hence the promulgation of Liturgiam Authenticam.

 

[cesmit2]

The words are not “incorrect” because if they were, we would not be using them.

The words - “For All” are incorrect as if you look in any translation of the Bible, the words “For All” do not appear in any of the Gospels. Christ’s word’s translated read “For Many” which is what prompted my original question.

There are a lot of things that go on in parishes across the nation and the world that are done incorrectly but are still being done. In my parish, the Extraordinary Ministers walk up on the alter during the Agnus Dei. This is another point of contention that I am taking up with my pastor. According to our Archdiocese, EMs are not supposed to approach the alter until the priest has received communion - but there they all stand behind him while the priest holds up Christ and states - “This is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Happy are those who are called to His supper.”

Thanks!

 

[TheCatholicDude]

Why would they change the words of Christ for the most important part of the mass? Does anyone have a good answer? It’s tearing me apart. I haven’t been to mass in awhile because of this. They might as well be saying for you and for the Leprechaun’s if they’re going to flip Christ’s words around like a hot potato.

 

[Usagi]

Why would they change the words of Christ for the most important part of the mass? Does anyone have a good answer? It’s tearing me apart. I haven’t been to mass in awhile because of this. They might as well be saying for you and for the Leprechaun’s if they’re going to flip Christ’s words around like a hot potato.

Be at peace. The Holy See has verified that either wording produces a valid consecration. However, as noted previously in this thread, the upcoming revision of the English translation will restore “for many.”

This should definitely not keep you away from Mass.

Usagi

 

[tobinatorstark]

words change meanings. In the Gospel of St. Mark in the Douay-Rheims it uses the word many. However many can mean a variety of things though. Many can include all.

 

[TheCatholicDude]

Be at peace. The Holy See has verified that either wording produces a valid consecration. However, as noted previously in this thread, the upcoming revision of the English translation will restore “for many.”

This should definitely not keep you away from Mass.

Usagi

Yes, I saw that about the upcoming revision, but I wasn’t sure if it was just speculation or what. The idea that either wording produces a valid consecration is nonsense. Sorry. If you look back…I can’t remember which pope it was now…but he said if any of the words are changed then it is invalid. I guess it depends which pope you want to listen to. Christ did not say for all, He said for many, which is a completely different thing. All includes atheists, satanists, etc. It’s not right. For me, it’s a big enough deal to keep me away from church, because for me there is no point in attending church without proper and valid communion. I can listen to sermons at home. Obviously, the pope thinks it is a big deal or he wouldn’t change it back, and this is probably because of flack from thousands of people who agree with me. Somethings can not be changed…ever.

 

[centurionguard]

You can blame the I.C.E.L. for a lot a poor unscrupulous translations in the liturgical translations.
For years the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops have blatantly disobeyed the Magisterium on the use of the RSV translation with Inclusive Language in Lectionaries and Sacramentaries which were strictly forbidden. And this has been going on well over a decade. Jesus never once said that ALL would be saved. (This Is The Blood of My Covenant Which Will Be Shed For “Many”) is the correct term. In Fatima the Blessed Virgin showed the visionaries a vision of Hell with human souls falling into the eternal pit of Damnation like grains of sand of a seashore.
Not All are saved.

 

[TheCatholicDude]

Centurionguard, yes, exactly! See? It’s not just me. This bugs people. Jesus said “this earth shall pass away but my WORDS shall remain forever”…maybe not exactly like that but that’s from memory. I can’t wait until they change it back and leave it the way it’s supposed to be.

 

[centurionguard]

Centurionguard, yes, exactly! See? It’s not just me. This bugs people. Jesus said “this earth shall pass away but my WORDS shall remain forever”…maybe not exactly like that but that’s from memory. I can’t wait until they change it back and leave it the way it’s supposed to be.

I have been a Sacristan and caretaker in a beautiful 120 year old Gothic styled Catholic church for over twelve years you would be shocked and would not likely believe liturgical abuse and scandals that I have sadly witnessed. In humility I was forced to shut my mouth a say nothing. And this only touches the surface of the iceberg: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4830242#post4830242

Yet it hasn’t stopped me from loving my Catholic Church.
and most importantly my Faith in her.

( Peter you are the Rock And on this Rock I will build MY Church
And the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against Her ) Matthew Chap 16: Verse 18

 

[sdtouchton]

Holy Eucharist: Non-Catholics are correct when they say “it is only a symbol”, because for them, it IS only a symbol. You see, they have no valid "Priestly Orders.
Ref:Matthew 26:26, Matthew 26:27-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20, John 6:56, John 15:6, 1Cor 11:23-26, 1Cor 11:27-29.